|
|
|
Continued from here.
| Arawn_Fenn wrote: |
| How are Lucas' comments detrimental to the EU? They're only detrimental to those who are contradicted by them. You're the one turning a blind eye to them. |
You are deliberately missing the point. That being how the GL view of the GFFA being sufficiently different from that of the EU, excuses a failsafe in case of catastrophe.
| Quote: |
| Envision it all you want, that doesn't mean it actually happened. Speculation, wishful thinking, and appeals to ignorance constantly spewing from the fanbase don't constitute a canon position or a change on Lucas' part. |
You mean you haven't read The Secret History of Star Wars? I won't say I'm surprised, given your obvious defense of the man, but you have always struck me as the sort of person who would eat all Lucas info you came across raw. I recommend it. It makes it's case by digging up lots of obscure old interview, article and screenplay quotes, and contrasting them with newer versions, which short of suspecting fabrication on the book's author's part, is hard to ignore.
Of course, given how you spend this rebuttal doing nothing but slinging personal attacks rather than arguing your case, I'm not holding my breath. Take it as a challenge, though: See whether you can support your current view of Lucas through a whole reading of that book. I know you can do it if you really focus hard. Good luck!
| Quote: |
| Simon didn't say, eh? The commentaries don't fit any of the various excuses given for ignoring something, but they're to be ignored anyway? |
You must not be familiar with the rules for the burden of proof. I am not required to prove a negative. You are required to prove a positive. The negative is the default.
Or in simpler terms, I repeat: Why should the commentaries be included to begin with? Then we can get into whether the rules of exclusion apply to them. Horse before cart.
| Quote: |
| Content-free circular logic at its finest. Because you ( not we ) refuse to accept film dialogue and Lucas' word, you "needed" an EU source. This does not show that EU can supersede the movies. It only shows you refuse to accept any other outcome. You're not going to be able to show that the EU can supersede the movies by comically using an example where the EU and the movies agree. The EU agreeing with Lucas is not a case of it superseding anything. The whole concept of the EU superseding the movies is revealed as nothing more than a meaningless fantasy stemming from rejection of the well-known canon hierarchy. |
Yeah, you'll have to explain how that constitutes circular logic, cause that makes no sense.
Also, you propose to challenge problematic logic with an ad populum fallacy? Good going, there! That the presumed rest of you don't need any convincing has to do with lack of a cricial eye for what costitutes scientifically valid evidence. I don't, however, assume a fanbase as large and varied as this can be pidgeonholed that easily, nor that you are in a position to represent the majority. This is an accusation leveled only at those who felt it hit them.
As for us needing the EU's word to confirm a GL word, yeah, it becomes authoritiative when there is another GL word which it could have gone with, but didn't. As well, it doesn't show that the EU can supercede the movies. I already showed a Leland quote proving that, so it is a foregone conclusion. This is merely an example thereof, and an odd one at that, since it applies only to fans on the outside who don't have the Holocron to refer to.
| Quote: |
| DarthMRN wrote: |
| The EU even supports it in that the Sith came back |
The Sith coming back in the EU doesn't necessarily mean that the Force became unbalanced again. |
That is not what "supports" mean.
| Quote: |
| DarthMRN wrote: |
| Say the obvious interpretation of Mortis is right: Balance truly means stay on Mortis and chain the Kids forever, with subtle effects on the real galaxy as a result. |
That may be an interpretation of Mortis, but it's hardly an obvious or even correct one. |
I agree that it is just an interpretation, whether it is the most obvious one will boil down to opinion. Saying it is incorrect, however, requires canonical evidence, something you have shown to be woefully incapable of providing. So don't sound so sure, why don't you. I already found that God-perspective EU evidence for Palp constituting the imbalance in the Force prior to Ani visiting Mortis, though the Fact Files. Though, of course, it is twarthed by Father saying Son had grown stronger lately, presumably in response to the Sith threat. Meaning that even did Ani come to rule Mortis with an iron fist, the Force could concievably have been brought back into balance through some mystical ripple-effect, rather than him personally doing the deed. The interpretation is still valid, though I like yours better, full of holes though it may be.
| Quote: |
| But it's interesting that you insist on taking the Father's first opinion in Overlords as unassailable fact, despite his own dialogue in Ghosts of Mortis contradicting this viewpoint, when character dialogue is somehow not enough to confirm Anakin as the Chosen One. This is a transparent double standard. |
You are wrong. My standard has always been the scientific one. Contradictory statements must be evaluated based on empirical data external to them. In this case, Ani being able to dominate the Kids in Overlords, thus giving mystical credence to Father's first account. You have consistently neglected to acknowledge the problem this point creates. By contrast, Father's second version of balance had no independent empirical validation before I dug up evidence for it from the Fact File. That version simply coincided with the movies, which provides OOU implication that it was the right one. But not valid evidence! That came from the Fact File claiming from the God-perspective, which is equal to empirical data, that killing Palp actually brought balance to the Force. Meaning version Ghosts is most likely correct, but unfortunately not explaining the mystical valdiation version Overlords got.
And as an aside, since I am not up to speed on our concurrent discussion on the Dark Horse boards, Father's version Ghosts is hampered by the problem that the life and death, the existence in the first place, of the Overlords is meaningless, both to the Force and to its balance. And that is the ultimate oddity you fail to address with your assertion that Mortis changes nothing. Whether they live or die, balance in the Force is a completely secular matter. Then what is their purpose to begin with? What are they supposed to be, whose power waxes and wanes with the power of the energy types in the normal galaxy?
Now, since I currently operate with a one-strike and you are out policy where you are concerned, Arawn, and this post has been devoted to your trademark evasion, personal attacks, simon-saying or at best reiteration of insufficient points you have already raised, I will have to ignore you if your next post doesn't countain any actual new coherent arguments.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.
Last edited by DarthMRN on Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:26 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
